Next let us imagine the sun contracted to a tenth of its present
diameter, so that its atoms and electrons move ten times nearer to one
another. Its mean density is thereby increased from 1·4 to 1400 times
that of water, and its central density from about 140 to 140,000.
You may check me here by pointing out that if the sun is already in
a liquid state it cannot be compressed to any such extent—a liquid
cannot usually have its density increased a thousand-fold. But we
have already noticed that halving a star’s diameter doubles its
temperature throughout. In the same way reducing a star’s diameter to
a tenth increases its temperature ten-fold, so that the sun’s central
temperature will be increased from, say, 50 million degrees to 500
million degrees. And at this latter temperature atoms hardly exist any
longer as such—the stellar matter consists almost entirely of free
electrons and nuclei. And these are so minute, that the increase of the
sun’s mean density from 1·4 to 1400 times the density of water is not
only possible, but leaves the sun’s substance in a state which may best
be described as gaseous. Once again, then, the new sun is dynamically
unstable. It would be represented by a point well to the left of the
main-sequence, near the middle of the unoccupied region between the
main-sequence and the white dwarfs, but as it is unstable it cannot
maintain its position here. Again we see that even if we place a star
in this region it cannot stay there. And, again—may it not be that the
reason why this region is unoccupied is that it represents unstable
stars?
Once more you may check me. If I have made my point, it has been by the
help of the rise of temperature which accompanies contraction. When
we imagined the sun to expand, ought we not to have considered the
fall of temperature which accompanies expansion? The answer is that we
ought, but it would have made no difference. Lowering the temperature
will cause a number of _L_-rings, and possibly also of _M_-rings, of
electrons to re-form, so that the new atoms will be of larger size,
but they will not lose their freedom of motion sufficiently to make
the sun stable. It would have been different if we had been discussing
a star of 10 or 50 times the sun’s weight; then it can be shewn that
the re-formation of _K_- and _L_-rings would have produced a series
of stable configurations. And the spur branch in the Russell diagram
exists to provide a home for just such stars.
The whole problem is too complicated to be discussed satisfactorily in
this fragmentary way; its proper discussion involves very complicated
mathematical analysis. Mathematical discussion shews that the Russell
diagram can be divided into regions representing stable and unstable
configurations in the manner shewn in fig. 24.
[Illustration: Fig. 24. Stable and unstable configurations in the
Russell diagram.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account